Firefly
- Thread starter Vargr Breath
- Start date
I didn't take "stupid" literally. Plausable tech does matter to me, which is why I like Traveller.
I like to distinguish the science in science fiction into several catagories.
Impossible Can't happen, get over it or you are writing fantasy.
Not proven. Might be possible, or not. We don't know. (use sparingly in "Hard SF")
Theoretically Possible but we don't know how to do the engineering.
Enginering difficult We know one way to do it, but it is too expensive or difficult.
Most of the high tech in Traveller counts as theoretically possible.
Jump drive. In the 1970s, Not Proven. Now, after Alcubierre and van der Broek, Theoretically possible.
Power Plant Engineering difficult
Maneuver Drive Not proven, unless Cramer's work on Woodward's Mach's principle drive pans out and makes it Engineering Difficult
Gravitics. According to Dr Robert Forward this is Theoretically possible, although air rafts are a lot more likely than grav plates.
I think the psionics rules as a whole are kinda questionable, but even John Campbell permitted psionics in SF the 1960s. At that time there was some evidence that it was real (the Rhine Institute, for example) and the CIA, KGB and DOD were experimenting with it. It wasn't until the 1980s that the preponderance of evidence was against it.
ranger2261
SOC-12
firefly is back.
this weeks episode was very entertaining.
barroom fights AND swordplay.
i give it three stars.
this weeks episode was very entertaining.
barroom fights AND swordplay.
i give it three stars.
Yes, I got a very "Imperial society" vibe from this week's ep. Lots of fun. I guess Mal didn't bother with acquiring any blade combat skills in his prior career (army).
I don't see any comments here about last week's "dead ship" episode (wasn't there a "fire aboard ship" Amber Zone in the JTAS back in the day?). I thought it was by far the best Firefly ep so far, and one of the best that any Mutant Enemy show has ever done (that includes Buffy and Angel, just in case ya don't know). It really highlighted Mal's strengths as a captain.
I am completely in love with Kaylee. And the ship. I want one of each.
I don't see any comments here about last week's "dead ship" episode (wasn't there a "fire aboard ship" Amber Zone in the JTAS back in the day?). I thought it was by far the best Firefly ep so far, and one of the best that any Mutant Enemy show has ever done (that includes Buffy and Angel, just in case ya don't know). It really highlighted Mal's strengths as a captain.
I am completely in love with Kaylee. And the ship. I want one of each.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
OK, I came back, Firefly is back on my cool must tape list after last weeks episode. I happened to be free when it was on so I watched, I was hooked from the first minute and agree this is the best episode yet! I am so glad I caught it and I almost resurrected this thread to celebrate. I haven't watched tonights episode yet, it's on tape though, so no spoilers 
Speaking of which, without doing it, the end, I mean the very end, of last weeks flashback show was absolutely beautiful, brilliant, I loved it! So all is forgiven, if they can make that kind of an episode once they should be able to do it again. Right?
Speaking of which, without doing it, the end, I mean the very end, of last weeks flashback show was absolutely beautiful, brilliant, I loved it! So all is forgiven, if they can make that kind of an episode once they should be able to do it again. Right?
Eclipse,
and you notice who was cheating?!?!?
That rascal Jayne!!
You just gotta watch that boy, he's got a licentious heart.
Oh and did ANYONE notice the NEW introduction to this weeks show? Mal is talking about terraforming many worlds in the galaxy..not just the solar system.
The FINAL shot of tonights episode was good too. So very typical Traveller.
If josh has not played or has not at least HEARD of Traveller i'd be suprised.
Bruce
The Man Behind the Curtain
P.S. That Kaylee is a HOTTIE!
and you notice who was cheating?!?!?
That rascal Jayne!!
You just gotta watch that boy, he's got a licentious heart.
Oh and did ANYONE notice the NEW introduction to this weeks show? Mal is talking about terraforming many worlds in the galaxy..not just the solar system.
The FINAL shot of tonights episode was good too. So very typical Traveller.
If josh has not played or has not at least HEARD of Traveller i'd be suprised.
Bruce
The Man Behind the Curtain
P.S. That Kaylee is a HOTTIE!
The new intro started last week. I think it's a reaction to lots of fan comments about the ambiguity of the original.
And yeah, what a show.
In the unshown pilot, there's a line where Wash is about to take the ship outta some trouble.
He says "Hang on, Travellers!"
Josh MUST know about the game!!!
And yeah, what a show.
In the unshown pilot, there's a line where Wash is about to take the ship outta some trouble.
He says "Hang on, Travellers!"
Josh MUST know about the game!!!
Listlurker
SOC-7
You frame the situation very well, Bob. To add my own two cents, I'd like to quote my wife -- a woman trained as both an Applied Mathematician and a Quantum Theorist. With a smile she likes to say, "All science-fiction is bullsh!t"
Now, she likes SF a lot (the more science-based the SF the better, given her education); the point of her statement is this ...
Seen from a mathematics point of view, physics is a sequence of interlocking "things which are mathematically true, and which can be demonstrated as such". There are parts we don't understand yet -- parts we don't understand how or where they fit into the mathematical expression of the reality of the universe -- but that doesn't mean they are "beyond science". They're just beyond science at this time, pending further testing and investigation.
My wife's point in calling all SF bullsh!t is that, in practice, physics is a whole expression of how the universe works. When TML-type flamer folk screech about the plausibilty of harder or softer SF principles (not dinging you here Bob, you're talking reasonably) they miss one crucial point: as soon as you violate one principle of science for your SF, you've violated them all, by extension. Physics has to "hang together" mathematically to be a proper expression of reality.
So, people who scorn those who accept "blaster pistols" in their SF while themselves countenancing FTL drive are hypocrites, at the very least. Yes the "hard SF" bullies tend to favour science-fiction principles which grow more directly out of our current math and physics theory, but they also ignore the fact that they are still entering the realm of science-FICTION; they are still leaping from a real scientific principle to an as-yet unreal or unproven extrapolation.
As my wife says in corollory to "All science-fiction is bullsh!t" ... "if an SF principle were scientifically true, then it would already be [at least mathematically] real and not fiction"
There's a British saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound". Once you're into the realm of fiction, you're there. How deeply your fiction contravenes reality is irrelevant from a scientific perspective, because scientific, mathematical reality is not a question of degree. Something's true or it's not true.
I'm not the scientist in this family, so any errors in expressing these ideas are entirely my own. If anyone has any legitimate questions, I will try to pass them on to my wife. I will not, however, answer anything even vaguely flame-like or sneering.
Oh yeah ... the "what about Einstein?" question. Einstein didn't re-create physics, he simply noticed a very small aspect of physics which didn't work as it was supposed to work. In investigating this anomaly, Einstein eventually discovered that whole sections of how we previously understood physics were, in fact, in error. To put it in gamer terms: Einstein didn't intend to write a new rules system, he meant to fix a broken rule or two, and in doing so, he discovered some major flaws in the existing system which needed to be corrected and explained.
Time to shut up now, I think. Thanks Bob for bringing up the topic of plausibility and SF. You are right that there are levels to which an SF story can use science. All I'm saying is that all SF is fiction first and foremost, no matter how much science it incorporates.
LL
If you have that episode on tape watch it with Close Captioning to see how they spell Travellers.
</font>[/QUOTE]I have it on VCD- so how do they spell it? With one l or the more telling double l ?</font>[/QUOTE]Don't know I've been having VCR problems. 
I was suggesting that someone find out.LOL! Just finished scanning/spot-reading this thread. Apparently Firefly has a mixture of fans and critics here. It seems to be a case of those who love the adventurous spirit (as well as the atmosphere and setting) versus those who can't abide the apparent (glaring?) scientific and/or cultural inconsistancies. But ... hehe ... no popular sci-fi series ever had scientific or cultural inconsistancies (tic - GR, you'd have loved this, sir).
As far as "viewers not having to consider all the possible implications of statements made in the show" ... it's funny how that was said in view of someone going to great effort to dig deep into everything said and done in the show and critisizing it without bothering to add in the one additional possibility of it having been said in jest. Like that's one too many things to consider ... especially since it blunts the shiny barb. I mean ... it's one thing to be anal and another to be selectively so. Sorry but that has all the markings of tainting critisism with predisposition.
Oh and ...
"On Serenity, crew and passengers live together in close quarters as they shuttle between the Alliance-governed galaxy and the border planets that delineate the new frontier."
And yet there are still critics that feel like insisting that the setting is one solar system with hundreds of planets simply because the show doesn't offer schematics of their FTL drive? If you're critical of comments about someone saying their pistol's gotta breathe then how much more wood for the fire is a futuristic ftl drive that fails to pass muster?
Too many characters to keep up with? Well, I suppose that must mark the difference between daytime dramas and nightime adventures.
But really .... nothing in the world is more fun than nitpicking the technical and scientific merits of a a freebooting space opera from a pro or con standpoint. (This is where the "sarcasm" tag goes for those who need it).
Ahem ....
What I really meant to say is ... "Hi there! I like it fine, myself. Nice to meetcha!"
As far as "viewers not having to consider all the possible implications of statements made in the show" ... it's funny how that was said in view of someone going to great effort to dig deep into everything said and done in the show and critisizing it without bothering to add in the one additional possibility of it having been said in jest. Like that's one too many things to consider ... especially since it blunts the shiny barb. I mean ... it's one thing to be anal and another to be selectively so. Sorry but that has all the markings of tainting critisism with predisposition.
Oh and ...
"On Serenity, crew and passengers live together in close quarters as they shuttle between the Alliance-governed galaxy and the border planets that delineate the new frontier."
And yet there are still critics that feel like insisting that the setting is one solar system with hundreds of planets simply because the show doesn't offer schematics of their FTL drive? If you're critical of comments about someone saying their pistol's gotta breathe then how much more wood for the fire is a futuristic ftl drive that fails to pass muster?
Too many characters to keep up with? Well, I suppose that must mark the difference between daytime dramas and nightime adventures.
But really .... nothing in the world is more fun than nitpicking the technical and scientific merits of a a freebooting space opera from a pro or con standpoint. (This is where the "sarcasm" tag goes for those who need it).
Ahem ....
What I really meant to say is ... "Hi there! I like it fine, myself. Nice to meetcha!"
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Originally posted by Frank Lee Scarlett:
LOL! Just finished scanning/spot-reading this thread.
Happy to have elicited a grin for my part in the melodrama.
Apparently Firefly has a mixture of fans and critics here.
I'm both, neither, all three (loved it, hated it, like it again, fickle lad that I am and/or the improving quality of the show)
<snip> But ... hehe ... no popular sci-fi series ever had scientific or cultural inconsistancies (tic - GR, you'd have loved this, sir).
HE INVOKES THE GREAT ONE'S NAME!
<snip> If you're critical of comments about someone saying their pistol's gotta breathe then how much more wood for the fire is a futuristic ftl drive that fails to pass muster?
Well in my defense (I think this is a 'shot'
at my post) my problem was not the saying the gun needed O2 but that then they right away go to the trouble to provide the O2 environment and then end up firing it in vacumm anyway 
I'd have the same problem if they hypothetically said the ship needs unobtanium for ftl, make a big show of getting some and then go ftl without using it. I don't mind sci-fantasy, I can't abide mindless inconsistancy. Anyway I love a good fight, er, debate.
But really .... nothing in the world is more fun than nitpicking the technical and scientific merits of a a freebooting space opera from a pro or con standpoint. (This is where the "sarcasm" tag goes for those who need it).
Aw shucks, you had me there until the sarcasm tag . I'd say there are some things more fun, but it does rank right up there.
Ahem ....
What I really meant to say is ... "Hi there! I like it fine, myself. Nice to meetcha!"
"Hi, and welcome. Nice to meet ya too! Really!"
LOL! Just finished scanning/spot-reading this thread.
Happy to have elicited a grin for my part in the melodrama.
Apparently Firefly has a mixture of fans and critics here.
I'm both, neither, all three (loved it, hated it, like it again, fickle lad that I am and/or the improving quality of the show)
<snip> But ... hehe ... no popular sci-fi series ever had scientific or cultural inconsistancies (tic - GR, you'd have loved this, sir).
HE INVOKES THE GREAT ONE'S NAME!
<snip> If you're critical of comments about someone saying their pistol's gotta breathe then how much more wood for the fire is a futuristic ftl drive that fails to pass muster?
Well in my defense (I think this is a 'shot'
I'd have the same problem if they hypothetically said the ship needs unobtanium for ftl, make a big show of getting some and then go ftl without using it. I don't mind sci-fantasy, I can't abide mindless inconsistancy. Anyway I love a good fight, er, debate.But really .... nothing in the world is more fun than nitpicking the technical and scientific merits of a a freebooting space opera from a pro or con standpoint. (This is where the "sarcasm" tag goes for those who need it).
Aw shucks, you had me there until the sarcasm tag . I'd say there are some things more fun, but it does rank right up there.
Ahem ....
What I really meant to say is ... "Hi there! I like it fine, myself. Nice to meetcha!"
"Hi, and welcome. Nice to meet ya too! Really!"
Thanks, FT. I'm actually excited to find ya'll. Even though I've not had the pleasure of meeting any of you before, I feel at home here. Traveller was a very enjoyable passtime for me that, unfortunately, fell by the wayside when real life became a bit more complicated. I'm hoping the internet can help remedy that.
I suppose my falling into the "shameless Firefly fan" category reveils what kind of player I was (not too engrossed with technical details ... not adverse to them either but adventure first. Charts and tables only existed to make answers faster and keep the momentum flowing).
Of course, since another favorite RPG genre of mine was TSR's Boot Hill, that probably provides additional insight.
Cowboys in space .... the perfect adventure (for me). I think ol' Han Solo mighta been Mal's big brother.
Anyhow ... pardon my abrupt entrance. Been awhile and this saloon looked like my kinda place.
I suppose my falling into the "shameless Firefly fan" category reveils what kind of player I was (not too engrossed with technical details ... not adverse to them either but adventure first. Charts and tables only existed to make answers faster and keep the momentum flowing).
Of course, since another favorite RPG genre of mine was TSR's Boot Hill, that probably provides additional insight.
Cowboys in space .... the perfect adventure (for me). I think ol' Han Solo mighta been Mal's big brother.
Anyhow ... pardon my abrupt entrance. Been awhile and this saloon looked like my kinda place.
I think some people are being WAY too critical of a show that some writers, actors, SFX people and crewmen are working very hard on. If you think the writing is so bad, try your hand at it. It's way too easy to sit behind the scenes and criticise someone elses attempt when you're not putting anything out there yourself.
As for technical errors, every SF TV show or movies has had them, to a greater or lesser extent. For that matter many TV shows or movies set in the modern day have glaring technical errors too. If it's that hard to get things right when you can research the facts right now, how hard is it when you're writing for a make-believe future?
As far as the number of characters goes, I prefer large casts. especially if they all have interesting back stories. It makes it more interesting in the hands of good writers, and while I'm not a huge fan of the Buffy/Angel shows, everything I've seen of them makes me believe that Joss Whedon and his crew at Mutant Enemy are good writers. They might not write to your particular taste, but that does not give anyone the right to badmouth something that others seem to enjoy. After all, isn't that what most normals do to us and the "silly" games we play?
I learned a long time ago never to step on anyone elses delusions, even if they seem stupid and silly to me, because my particular delusions will probably seem that way to others.
As for technical errors, every SF TV show or movies has had them, to a greater or lesser extent. For that matter many TV shows or movies set in the modern day have glaring technical errors too. If it's that hard to get things right when you can research the facts right now, how hard is it when you're writing for a make-believe future?
As far as the number of characters goes, I prefer large casts. especially if they all have interesting back stories. It makes it more interesting in the hands of good writers, and while I'm not a huge fan of the Buffy/Angel shows, everything I've seen of them makes me believe that Joss Whedon and his crew at Mutant Enemy are good writers. They might not write to your particular taste, but that does not give anyone the right to badmouth something that others seem to enjoy. After all, isn't that what most normals do to us and the "silly" games we play?
I learned a long time ago never to step on anyone elses delusions, even if they seem stupid and silly to me, because my particular delusions will probably seem that way to others.
Similar threads
